6 ms·

"how completely disconnected Westerners are from the way the world actually works" Would you like to explain that, or are you just going to throw a nebulous as

"how completely disconnected Westerners are from the way the world actually works" Would you like to explain that, or are you just going to throw a nebulous assertion out there and expect it to mean something?

nir 16y ago
Sure (btw, reworded it a bit, hope it's less inflammatory). A good example is the Iraq war: the pro-war side just assumed that, given the option, Iraqis will be happy to adopt the Western liberal democracy model. On the other hand, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars. Another example: Afghanistan. First we go in. Then we realize Taliban not only has a completely different notion of values, but of time itself - they are perfectly happy to continue fighting for 20 more years if need be. Now we're thinking, "let's just pull out and forget about it" - as if it's possible to just start off of a clean slate, no consequence. Another example, Iran in the Middle East. The documents "reveal" what anyone should have known - Arab regimes are horrified of the option of a nuclear Iran. This is because the deepest rivalry in the Middle East, that shed the most blood, is the Sunni-Shiite (and Arab-Farsi) - see the >1m dead in the Iraq-Iran war - rather then the Israeli-Arab obsessively covered by Fox/CNN/Reddit/Beck/Stewart. Finally, a personal favorite of mine: my wife often tells me how her (expensive Ivy League) university professors bring up various UN treaties nearly all nations but the US have signed. They seem to actually believe the various dictatorships that signed these documents will not ignore them completely the second they become inconvenient. I'm not claiming to have a good idea on what to do with Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/etc. Just that I think the level of discussion is ridiculous.
- dkl 16y ago
  > On the other side, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars. The left used this argument because it was the handiest they had. I think your criticism of it is absurd. It's like you're saying the left was right for the wrong reason, as if there is one reason all on the left opposed the war in Iraq. How about this: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and therefore there was NO reason to attack them??
  - nir 16y ago
    I'm sure you're not reading support for the Iraq war in my comments? My problem is not with the anti-war point of view, but with naivety of the legality argument.
  - colinplamondon 16y ago
    They tried to assassinate an American President, for one. They also gassed their own people and had a history of developing WMDs- that economic sanctions had slowed that development didn't materially change the intent.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      And don't forget that Saddam wasn't abiding by the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire, which ought to be an immediate justification for resuming fire, since that's how ceasefire agreements work. Lack of legalistic justification was never lacking for the Iraq war. Whether it was morally the right thing to do, or whether it was a worthwhile thing to do from a US-interests standpoint, are genuine questions. (Which I don't feel like discussing today.)
      - vacri 16y ago
        And don't forget that the US' allies were all saying "Just wait a few months until the weapons inspections agenda is complete, then we'll all go in as planned and sanctioned by the UN". No, the US had to accelerate the timetable, replacing "worthless weapons inspections" with Powell's equally worthless poster project showing "structures".
    - guelo 16y ago
      After 9/11? ah, these arguments are giving me fond memories of wanting to pull my hair out back in 2003.
- netcan 16y ago
  Nir, I have a similar background to you. Since you single out Americans, tell me where people have more realistic and worldview? Our home country?
  - nir 16y ago
    I definitely don't single out Americans. In my experience it's just the same in Western Europe and other places. People who live in places where they are forced to exist "closer to the metal", eg Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa tend to be less naive. Not smarter or better in any way - just more aware of the forces that shape the world. The morning of 9/11/01 I was in a hostel in Adelaide, Australia. An American girl was in the TV room in tears, crying, "why would anyone do such a thing?". I don't mean to belittle her sorrow one bit, but I remember how the way she perceived this as illogical seemed so otherworldly to me. I mean, we grew up thinking it's obvious someone would attack our homes, if they could (and sometimes they did).
    - netcan 16y ago
      I have seen those same tears in Kfar Saba. That said, I agree with you that the naive 19 year old in the US is more naive than her counterpart elsewhere. That doesn't say anything about Americans perception of Iraqi/Afgahni values. I don't think Americans are more naive about these than other people about similar things. Probably less. Fallacies, naivety. These are pretty wide.
      - nir 16y ago
        It's not the tears. I could tear up as well. It's the disbelief that anyone would want to harm you, even though they never met you, just because you belong to a group (eg nation) they're opposed to. It was strange to me, since I grew up knowing there are people who never met me who'd harm me given the chance. It was actually happening pretty close by, from time to time. I didn't realize, until then, that there are people who don't grow up with the same notion. Again, I'm not singling out Americans at all. I actually seem to have a higher opinion of America & Americans than most of my fellow New Yorkers..
- joelhaus 16y ago
  I'm not claiming to have a good idea on what to do with Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/etc. It's a shame that airing extreme views produces more ad dollars than airing centrist views, because apparently, it also tars how entire populations are percieved. My impression is that your questions are shared by many (most?) in the west.
sfphotoarts 16y ago
If you read the rest of his comment, you will see his explanation for the opening (and inflammatory) sentence. A basic grounding in recent world history would also likely be useful. The point, if I may be allowed to interpret his intention, was to point out that having spent a couple hundred years marauding around the world toppling governments that didn't suit its ideology the USA has lost sight of other cultures, their values and just assumes their way is the way. Democracy, capitalism etc are not the only political and economic models that have any value. In fact, an argument could be made against both of these, but currently it seems that they work well enough - especially when you back them with sufficient number of nuclear warheads. I am not making any kind of political point, I live here in the US and love it, but having traveled the world, I have seen first hand that there is actually a disconnect between how this country, in aggregate, thinks and how much of it actually works.
- dantheman 16y ago
  I'd like to hear one coherent argument against capitalism -- I've never seen one.
  - prodigal_erik 16y ago
    Pure capitalism is a rent-seeking company-town dystopian nightmare. It encourages exclusive ownership of strategic resources, even when they're openly used to destroy the competitive free market by preventing rivals from existing. Similarly, lack of access to capital is a self-perpetuating social stratification problem which has led to violent revolution. IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it. You don't get to assume regulation that does "the right thing". Instead, you have to accept regulation as it works in practice. When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold.
aristus 16y ago
I would guess that the OP means realpolitik. Where there is power, there is corruption. Smuggling currency is a very (very) common hobby. Horse-trading (influence for money, trade deals for extradition, taking in inconvenient "no longer enemy combatants" in exchange for influence or money), etc, is a daily thing. To survive and thrive you need to think about practical considerations more than ideals or principles. Take this point about Pakistan's nuclear fuel. First, it's a bit odd that we countenance a nuclear program in Pakistan, a muslim country that has been involved in several border wars, but a nuclear program in Iran or Iraq is grounds for invasion. The reasons for that, what looks like gross hypocrisy, are many. The Pakistani diplomat wasn't objecting to the removal of the fuel per se, but how it will play in the local media and politics. That may or may not be bullshit, and perhaps beside the point. Or maybe its not. No one, not even the diplomats know everything. There are always plans within plans and forces at cross-purposes and idiots who value expedience over long-term planning. Western folk tend not to have internalized this point of view. Taken too far it leads to paranoia, but I wouldn't mind a slightly larger dose of "reality" in the thinking of the average US voter.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Isn't the realpolitik behind US tolerance of Pakistan simply that the US is not powerful enough to make war with Pakistan? Such a war would draw in lots of other powers and would be a massive drain on the US. All we're left able to do is make nice with the military strongman in charge in exchange for Pakistan looking the other way while we invade its border country.
  - aristus 16y ago
    I think it's a bit more deep, especially given our prior history with Afghanistan and General Zia, and the complicated role of AQ Khan in nuclear proliferation. stratfor is a good place to dig into those kinds of questions.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      I'm a big fan of Stratfor. My comment was intended as a very high level synopsis of the situation, but I agree it lacks nuance.

nir 16y ago

Sure (btw, reworded it a bit, hope it's less inflammatory). A good example is the Iraq war: the pro-war side just assumed that, given the option, Iraqis will be happy to adopt the Western liberal democracy model. On the other hand, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars. Another example: Afghanistan. First we go in. Then we realize Taliban not only has a completely different notion of values, but of time itself - they are perfectly happy to continue fighting for 20 more years if need be. Now we're thinking, "let's just pull out and forget about it" - as if it's possible to just start off of a clean slate, no consequence. Another example, Iran in the Middle East. The documents "reveal" what anyone should have known - Arab regimes are horrified of the option of a nuclear Iran. This is because the deepest rivalry in the Middle East, that shed the most blood, is the Sunni-Shiite (and Arab-Farsi) - see the >1m dead in the Iraq-Iran war - rather then the Israeli-Arab obsessively covered by Fox/CNN/Reddit/Beck/Stewart. Finally, a personal favorite of mine: my wife often tells me how her (expensive Ivy League) university professors bring up various UN treaties nearly all nations but the US have signed. They seem to actually believe the various dictatorships that signed these documents will not ignore them completely the second they become inconvenient. I'm not claiming to have a good idea on what to do with Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/etc. Just that I think the level of discussion is ridiculous.

dkl 16y ago
> On the other side, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars. The left used this argument because it was the handiest they had. I think your criticism of it is absurd. It's like you're saying the left was right for the wrong reason, as if there is one reason all on the left opposed the war in Iraq. How about this: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and therefore there was NO reason to attack them??
- nir 16y ago
  I'm sure you're not reading support for the Iraq war in my comments? My problem is not with the anti-war point of view, but with naivety of the legality argument.
- colinplamondon 16y ago
  They tried to assassinate an American President, for one. They also gassed their own people and had a history of developing WMDs- that economic sanctions had slowed that development didn't materially change the intent.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    And don't forget that Saddam wasn't abiding by the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire, which ought to be an immediate justification for resuming fire, since that's how ceasefire agreements work. Lack of legalistic justification was never lacking for the Iraq war. Whether it was morally the right thing to do, or whether it was a worthwhile thing to do from a US-interests standpoint, are genuine questions. (Which I don't feel like discussing today.)
    - vacri 16y ago
      And don't forget that the US' allies were all saying "Just wait a few months until the weapons inspections agenda is complete, then we'll all go in as planned and sanctioned by the UN". No, the US had to accelerate the timetable, replacing "worthless weapons inspections" with Powell's equally worthless poster project showing "structures".
  - guelo 16y ago
    After 9/11? ah, these arguments are giving me fond memories of wanting to pull my hair out back in 2003.
netcan 16y ago
Nir, I have a similar background to you. Since you single out Americans, tell me where people have more realistic and worldview? Our home country?
- nir 16y ago
  I definitely don't single out Americans. In my experience it's just the same in Western Europe and other places. People who live in places where they are forced to exist "closer to the metal", eg Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa tend to be less naive. Not smarter or better in any way - just more aware of the forces that shape the world. The morning of 9/11/01 I was in a hostel in Adelaide, Australia. An American girl was in the TV room in tears, crying, "why would anyone do such a thing?". I don't mean to belittle her sorrow one bit, but I remember how the way she perceived this as illogical seemed so otherworldly to me. I mean, we grew up thinking it's obvious someone would attack our homes, if they could (and sometimes they did).
  - netcan 16y ago
    I have seen those same tears in Kfar Saba. That said, I agree with you that the naive 19 year old in the US is more naive than her counterpart elsewhere. That doesn't say anything about Americans perception of Iraqi/Afgahni values. I don't think Americans are more naive about these than other people about similar things. Probably less. Fallacies, naivety. These are pretty wide.
    - nir 16y ago
      It's not the tears. I could tear up as well. It's the disbelief that anyone would want to harm you, even though they never met you, just because you belong to a group (eg nation) they're opposed to. It was strange to me, since I grew up knowing there are people who never met me who'd harm me given the chance. It was actually happening pretty close by, from time to time. I didn't realize, until then, that there are people who don't grow up with the same notion. Again, I'm not singling out Americans at all. I actually seem to have a higher opinion of America & Americans than most of my fellow New Yorkers..
joelhaus 16y ago
I'm not claiming to have a good idea on what to do with Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/etc. It's a shame that airing extreme views produces more ad dollars than airing centrist views, because apparently, it also tars how entire populations are percieved. My impression is that your questions are shared by many (most?) in the west.

sfphotoarts 16y ago

If you read the rest of his comment, you will see his explanation for the opening (and inflammatory) sentence. A basic grounding in recent world history would also likely be useful. The point, if I may be allowed to interpret his intention, was to point out that having spent a couple hundred years marauding around the world toppling governments that didn't suit its ideology the USA has lost sight of other cultures, their values and just assumes their way is the way. Democracy, capitalism etc are not the only political and economic models that have any value. In fact, an argument could be made against both of these, but currently it seems that they work well enough - especially when you back them with sufficient number of nuclear warheads. I am not making any kind of political point, I live here in the US and love it, but having traveled the world, I have seen first hand that there is actually a disconnect between how this country, in aggregate, thinks and how much of it actually works.

dantheman 16y ago
I'd like to hear one coherent argument against capitalism -- I've never seen one.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  Pure capitalism is a rent-seeking company-town dystopian nightmare. It encourages exclusive ownership of strategic resources, even when they're openly used to destroy the competitive free market by preventing rivals from existing. Similarly, lack of access to capital is a self-perpetuating social stratification problem which has led to violent revolution. IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it. You don't get to assume regulation that does "the right thing". Instead, you have to accept regulation as it works in practice. When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold.

aristus 16y ago

I would guess that the OP means realpolitik. Where there is power, there is corruption. Smuggling currency is a very (very) common hobby. Horse-trading (influence for money, trade deals for extradition, taking in inconvenient "no longer enemy combatants" in exchange for influence or money), etc, is a daily thing. To survive and thrive you need to think about practical considerations more than ideals or principles. Take this point about Pakistan's nuclear fuel. First, it's a bit odd that we countenance a nuclear program in Pakistan, a muslim country that has been involved in several border wars, but a nuclear program in Iran or Iraq is grounds for invasion. The reasons for that, what looks like gross hypocrisy, are many. The Pakistani diplomat wasn't objecting to the removal of the fuel per se, but how it will play in the local media and politics. That may or may not be bullshit, and perhaps beside the point. Or maybe its not. No one, not even the diplomats know everything. There are always plans within plans and forces at cross-purposes and idiots who value expedience over long-term planning. Western folk tend not to have internalized this point of view. Taken too far it leads to paranoia, but I wouldn't mind a slightly larger dose of "reality" in the thinking of the average US voter.

grandalf 16y ago
Isn't the realpolitik behind US tolerance of Pakistan simply that the US is not powerful enough to make war with Pakistan? Such a war would draw in lots of other powers and would be a massive drain on the US. All we're left able to do is make nice with the military strongman in charge in exchange for Pakistan looking the other way while we invade its border country.
- aristus 16y ago
  I think it's a bit more deep, especially given our prior history with Afghanistan and General Zia, and the complicated role of AQ Khan in nuclear proliferation. stratfor is a good place to dig into those kinds of questions.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I'm a big fan of Stratfor. My comment was intended as a very high level synopsis of the situation, but I agree it lacks nuance.